Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

...

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_re_eu/pope_other_christians;_ylt=AsqnExPJLCiJRLpxE..U3PLMWM0F

I thought our means of salvation was the saving Grace of God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not some catholic dogma and tradition established by constantine.

You want the true church? Try reading the bible and not some "booklet" of dogma published by church of constantine. The true church was established in Jerusalem, not Rome.

His ascertation is no different than the mormons. The Church of God is NOT some man-made institutional government of doctrine - it's a group of believers that put their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, and seek to love God and love their neighbor. Those individuals that come together for growth and fellowship in God are the true church.

quote:

---

Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church,

---

Correct, and nothing new

quote:

---

approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective

---

False.

quote:

---

and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

---

Very misleading characterization.

quote:

---

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus,"

---

Correct.

quote:

---

which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."

---

Very, very misleading characterization.

How about offering up a link to the original document? The Pope is a very clear writer and thinker who expresses himself far better than any journalist could ever characterize in a short "news" story.

I am glad my salvation is dependent upon Christ and not what any man says.

I think this is the document being referenced.

http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/a0_en.htm

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Redstone appears to be right here. The news article does appear to overstate some of the things in the actual document. In fact the actual document says that salvation may be attained through a church not in communion with Rome.

I've always found the church's position on the Orthodox churches in the East to be somewhat paradoxical. They acknowledge that these churches retain the deposit of apostolic authority but they are incomplete churches because they don't recognize Petrian primacy. The former should mean that they are capable of interpreting Scripture correctly and so if they conclude that Petrian primacy is false, then it calls into question whether Rome still has the authority it claims. I don't think you can justify the Catholic Church's beliefs about the Orthodox Church without creating an argument that undermines the authority of Rome.

I'm sure someone here will try though.

[This message has been edited by pocketrockets06 (edited 7/10/2007 10:31a).]

As an addendum, the document does state that the Orthodox churches are suffering from "defects" and other "ecclesial communities" from the Reformation onward are not entitled to be "Churches", so Redstone is not completely correct.

[This message has been edited by pocketrockets06 (edited 7/10/2007 10:29a).]

What do you expect from a member of the so-called "Master Race?"

Although I like Seamaster, we are two different people!

The relationship to the Orthodox is one of almost desperation for reconcillation. Peterine primacy is less of an issue, IMO, then political divisions tied up in nationalism. I think there will eventually be a reunion - remember that both churches think in terms of centuries.

And a re-affirmation that the Sacraments entrusted to the Church through St. Peter, the Apostles, and their appointed successors are where we may find the fullness of faith (especially by the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of Christian existence) is nothing new, or even particularly newsworthy - its been taught for nearly two thousand years.

Whoops, sorry. My apologies, I just thought I saw Seamaster's name on the post. I'll edit to correct.

I believe this is what many people are talking about when they discuss Catholics and the way they view themselves as Christians/Catholics.

It's all there. I'm not sure how you can spin this. It is what it is.

quote:

---

the bible and not some "booklet" of dogma published by church

---

Isn't that redundant?

Titan -Your quote: "His ascertation is no different than the mormons. The Church of God is NOT some man-made institutional government of doctrine - it's a group of believers that put their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, and seek to love God and love their neighbor. Those individuals that come together for growth and fellowship in God are the true church."

Unfortunately neither history or the scriptures support your assertion. Christ established a Church with an organized structure. You can recognize His Church only when it has the same structure as the original, with the same priesthood authority and gifts of the spirit. This will help you to read again.

Eph. 4: 4-16
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one[ faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8 Wherefore he saith, When he aascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that aascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.




[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 7/10/2007 12:00p).]

quote:

---

And a re-affirmation that the Sacraments entrusted to the Church through St. Peter, the Apostles, and their appointed successors are where we may find the fullness of faith (especially by the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of Christian existence) is nothing new, or even particularly newsworthy - its been taught for nearly two thousand years.

---

Peter was Jewish, not Catholic. He followed the Jewish Law, worshiped in the temple until it was destroyed, and preached the gospel to primarily Jewish people. He didn't follow man-made sarciments -- he followed the feasts and laws which God gave thousands of years before. Paul did the same. Notice all through Acts they schedule around the various Jewish feasts and the Sabbath.

They reference OT scripture thousands of times. they don't talk about sacraments or popes or bishops or priests. the catholic sacraments have been around for 1600 years, not 2000 years.

must.... protect.... the.... institution.... at.... all.... cost

All the ancient churches have roughly the same sacraments in what they are and what they beleive they mean.

I find it hard to beleive that if sacraments were something thrown into the church 400 years after the fact that they are so similar between Orthodox, RC, Coptic, and Assyrian churches. And two, that there wasn't some council called to prove that one school of teaching was wrong. There were consistent fights between the schools of thought in Antioch and Alexandria, but it doesn't seem that this was one of them? I wonder why that was. They could argue about the nature of Christ, mother of God/Christ, and other items, but many of the sacraments and the view of the church on them was not an issue.

quote:

---

What do you expect from a member of the so-called "Master Race?"

---

That is a despicable thing to say. Not surprising coming from a self professed baby killing supporter.

Baptism
Confession
The Eucharist
Confirmation
Holy Orders (Deacon, Priest, Bishop)
Annointing of the Sick

Marriage
Divorce & Remarriage
Contraception
Homosexuality
The Husband as Head of the Family

Except for much of what is contained in the above links, Peter & Paul never mentioned anything (in Scripture) about the Sacraments.

__________________________________________________________
- Happiness is making your own beer.
Carpe Brewski...

[This message has been edited by 747Ag (edited 7/10/2007 5:01p).]

My understanding of Biblical times is that much was done through oral tradition.

Is this right or wrong. What did the church teach before the Bible was compiled?

I just like watching Protestants get their panties in a wad over this. But when you turn your back on the Church that Jesus commissioned with Peter, you have to make a lot of excuses and false accusations about the Church.

747: your links do not work, http is in there twice.

quote:

---

I just like watching Protestants get their panties in a wad over this. But when you turn your back on the Church that Jesus commissioned with Peter, you have to make a lot of excuses and false accusations about the Church.

---

It's posts like these which makes me wonder about the sincerity of Catholics in ecumenical efforts.

In Acts 15, we can observe that both Peter and Paul submitted to the ruling authority of James, the physical, literal, blood brother of Jesus. First rule of fight club: don't ever let Scripture shape one's view of reality. Not that Protestants are innocent in this, of course.

I find this comment by the Pope amusing for some reason. I dont know why since he's basically calling every non-Catholic a heathen.

James, Bishop of Jerusalem, was the literal blood brother of Jesus. Wonder why he didn't take care of his mother Mary as was Jewish custom? hmmm. I also have not seen anywhere that James was specifically said to the the blood brother of Jesus. Where have I been missing that?

It was also customary for the the local Bishop to "announce" the ruling of the council. Much the way theology teachings and doctrines make their way from Cardinals to the Pope in the RC church. Primacy is a rather weird doctrine in the ancient churches as there is some beleif of primacy but the argument is what that extends to and over.

The Coptic church has primacy of the Bishop of Alexandria, Ordodox has the Bishop of Constanople, and the Assyrian Church has their leader (not sure how big they were). Each church has a different view on what individual churches control and what the head of the church controls with respect to doctrine, building, finances, etc.

[This message has been edited by clw04 (edited 7/10/2007 4:28p).]

[This message has been edited by clw04 (edited 7/10/2007 4:36p).]

quote:

---

James, Bishop of Jerusalem, was the literal blood brother of Jesus. Wonder why he didn't take care of his mother Mary as was Jewish custom? hmmm. I also have not seen anywhere that James was specifically said to the the blood brother of Jesus. Where have I been missing that?

---

and where does it say that James was Jesus' cousin? oh yeah, Jerome said that! and your evidence that James did not take care of his mother is what?

Benedict XVI is basically saying what the Catholic Church has always taught - That it has the fullness of truth. By definition, the protestants do not have this, because they don't care for Mary, they don't think Peter was the leader of the Church, they don't have 7 sacraments, they don't believe in oral tradition etc. You can argue these things don't count, but if you do define them as truth, as the Catholic Church does, then by definition, any body of believers that doesn't have them does not have the Catholic fullness of truth, and probably doesn't even want it. Having the Bible and preaching is great, but the Catholic Church is much more than preaching and bible reading.

I love this Pope !!

quote:

---

but if you do define them as truth, as the Catholic Church does, then by definition, any body of believers that doesn't have them does not have the Catholic fullness of truth, and probably doesn't even want it.

---

so 73, are you now arguing for the relativity of truth? So I can define truth as I see fit and therefore Roman Catholics are outside the truth. I mean, why not, right?

quote:

---

It was also customary for the the local Bishop to "announce" the ruling of the council. Much the way theology teachings and doctrines make their way from Cardinals to the Pope in the RC church. Primacy is a rather weird doctrine in the ancient churches as there is some beleif of primacy but the argument is what that extends to and over.

---

so now you're advocating a councilar approach?

What you think has nothing to do with real spirituality.

Unfortunately we were spoiled by John Paul II, who was a real man of spirit and embraced everyone.

This Pope seems to be what used to be the typical Pope. A civil servant in robes.

VT,

I'm not advocating anything. I'm explaining history. History shows that councils were used to answer disagreements (heresies) within the early church. How the councils worked, I don't know, but it has been shown that nearly everyone of the Bishops wrote to the Bishop of Rome in early times as a leader, while the two leaders in theological thought were in Alexandria and Antioch. Hence, it was typically the Church in Rome that would have made the decision. The public declarations were typically not made by the Bishop of Rome at these councils.

Why did Mary go with John after Jesus death when she had sons to take care of her as is Jewish custom. For her sons not to take care of her would be a terrible act for a Jew, especially one that held such an esteemed position.

No, VT2, I am arguing just the opposite. Catholics know they have the fullness of truth, while protestants....protest that, which is certainly their right.

The Truth is not relative, but firm and fixed. And that is exactly what the Holy Father is saying.

Why do you Catholics pretend you don't feel superior to everyone when you post the crap that you post on every thread about how YOUR denomination is the RIGHT one?

Are you stupid? In denial? What?

quote:

---

The Truth is not relative, but firm and fixed. And that is exactly what the Holy Father is saying.

---

Wasn't that Limbo thing Firm and Fixed until the Pope just decreed it of existence?

Why not just announce away those other silly details like the virgin birth, resurrection, eternal damnation etc. Then maybe we would start to get a bit closer to the truth.

[This message has been edited by schizmann (edited 7/10/2007 5:20p).]

quote:

---

I'm not advocating anything. I'm explaining history. History shows that councils were used to answer disagreements (heresies) within the early church. How the councils worked, I don't know, but it has been shown that nearly everyone of the Bishops wrote to the Bishop of Rome in early times as a leader, while the two leaders in theological thought were in Alexandria and Antioch. Hence, it was typically the Church in Rome that would have made the decision. The public declarations were typically not made by the Bishop of Rome at these councils.

---

One small problem: there was no Roman Church at this point in time. Peter and Paul were opposing each other in this debate and James read the verdict. As such, the two so-called patriarchs of the Roman Church submitted to the rule of someone else. There goes Petrine (specifically) primacy. It simply does not hold.

quote:

---

Why did Mary go with John after Jesus death when she had sons to take care of her as is Jewish custom. For her sons not to take care of her would be a terrible act for a Jew, especially one that held such an esteemed position.

---

so based on these few verses in only one of the Gospels were are to infer the total violation of common Jewish custom. The principle of multiple attestations would help here.

texasag73,

AMEN BROTHER!!!!!

You defended this well. It always irritates me is how the media loves to get the "juices" flowing of protestants against the Catholic Church by twisting the facts.

As texasag73 points out, THIS IS NOTHING NEW!!! There is no story here.